Parksville, N.Y. August 4th, 1947. Dear Dr. Federn: The day you wrote the letter of July 30, we left New York, and went to a retreat near Parksville, N.Y. The retreat is actually a bungalow. (My address for letters is as before 526 W 113). I thank you for your friendly letter. It is really strange that in all these years we met only once in my place. We should meet each other more often. I shall advise yuou how to obtain a permit to use the Columbia Library: it should be a simple matter. Mercer’s argument concerning Assyrian chronology appears to me no problem and no argument at all. All is built upon the idea that Assuruballit, of whom there are two letters in EA Letters, is the same Assuruballit whose name is found in Assyrian Kings lists. This assumption has no basis whatsoever. Assuruballit of the EA Letters is son of Asur-nadin-ahi, as he attests himself; Asuruballit of the Kings lists is son of Eriba-Adad. In order to make Assuruballit of the Royal (Kings( lists to the king mentioned in Merosar-Seti-Assuruballit war (Merosar’s Annals) it is necessary to let him live from the time he corresponded with Amenhotep IV or even Amenhotep III until a late year of Seti’s reign. Actually, as I have shown: Assuruballit I is the king mentioned in the kings lists, and he may have reigned in the 14th c., or not, all depends how much trth is in these lists. Assuruballit II is the correspondent of EA: ninth century. Assuruballit III, the last king of Assyria, is mentioned in Merosar’s as well as Nabopolasar’s annals: seventh century. Now to your new argument that I have to disprove the chronology of the Middle Kingdom besides that of the new Kingdom. I have not read yet the book of Winlock, but I will certainly read it. I imagine in advance that his chronology is built upon the Sothis period; adjusting 200 years to the Hyksos period, he follows the Berlin School. But you know that Petrie added another 1460 years to these 200 years, and his “long chronology” had some followers. Hall in Cambridge Ancient History writes that if not for the Sothis period, 500 years would be the right span of time judged by cultural and other developments. He even surmises that some chang ein the calendar was undertaken early in the Hyksos time: this he does in order to avoid the Sothis difficulty which requires either 200 or 1660 years for the same period. After reading my Worlds in Collision you may realize that Sothis period is a sheer nonsense, since at the end of the Middle Kingdom the terrestrial globe was thrown out of its axis and orbit. - Since it is possible to move the end of the Middle Kingdom by 1460 yeras, and no synchronisms (say, with Babylon) made it impossible, it must be possible to return to Josephus Flavius (Hyksos 511 years; or is it 519?- I have no historical books here, and I have to write from memory); also to the Scriptures (ca. 450 years), and Hall (ca. 500 years). Thus the end of the Middle Kingdom falls in the fifteenth century, about 1430). Since I last saw you and a little bit complained about my health, I feel perfectly fine—as far as my health is concerned; but my planned short trip to Palestine (for 6 weeks) may be postponed again, since it is not appropriate to come there in such a time to take care of property. On the other hand, I have a strong desire to see my two books in press. I wish you a good rest. Enjoy the beautiful nature of Lake George. I shall write to your father separately. Very sincerely yours, Im. Velikovsky